New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

gisterme - 10:21pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6871 of 6897)

commondata 12/17/02 3:20pm

"This roll-out is absolutely nothing to do with missile defense is it?..."

Roll out? By that do you mean the decision to deploy some anti-ballistic missile interceptors? How could that have nothing to do with missile defense??? Your statement is nonsense.

"...This is about being able to shoot anything out of the sky, anywhere at anytime..."

Ten interceptors in Alaska could do that? We must be farther along with our missile technology than I thought. It's much easier to believe that your statement is nonsense.

"...This is an offensive weapon."

You've acheived a nonsnse-statement hat trick, commondata.

None of the old Cold War combatants need more offensive weapons. The problem is that we all already have too many of those. The big problem now is how to get rid of them.

It seems apparant that no nation who has WMD never be able to get rid of them all as long as somebody else has or may have them. That "conventional wisdom" may not be the last word, however.

Perhaps having a defense against particular classes of WMD such as ballistic missiles would make it possible to get rid of all of our own without having to be absolutely sure that no others exist in the world.

If we had no ICBMs ourselves but a shield that could defend against small numbers of ICBMs other folks might shoot at us how would that make us the bad guys?

gisterme - 10:46pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6872 of 6897)

wrcooper 12/17/02 4:51pm

"We could handle the N. Korean threat in other ways, principally diplomatically. We persuaded the Kim Il-sung regime to back down before..."

Ummm, I think it's more like Kim Il-sung persuaded us to send him a few billion dollars worth of aid and nuclear technology and he didn't back down at all. We got rookie-dood.

...We can do it again..."

I'm sure Kim Il would be delighted if we did! I don't guess we'd better. We've only managed to get egg on our face by negotiating with those who do not negotiate in good faith.

"...a space elevator may now be possible, given the discovery and mass production of carbon nanotubes. Such a structure would make possible the full commercialization of space, ending the search for cheap access to orbit. Current estimates suggest it could be made for $20-30 billion within 12 years..."

Sounds great. Would that be a juicy terrorist target or what? Could that survive having one of those new SSTs flown into it?

"...Will we launch a massive national effort to build it?..."

Not likely so long as there are those who will be trying to destroy it.

"...But we will be developing missile interceptors to stop a virtually nonexistent threat..."

How do you know the treat is "virtually nonexistent", commondata? Have Kim Il-jung and Saddam been telling you so? Did they offer some explanation as to why they are working so hard to develop or aquire long range ballistic missiles? Are they trying to get them so they won't have to use them? Is that a line of reasoning that would convince you of their good intentions? That wouldn't surprise me too much, commondata.

"...when there are other less expensive and risky means to do the job."

First thing I'd observe about this statement is that it seems to contradict your predeeding statement that there's no job to be done. However, I'd like to hear what your less expensive and risky means of "doing the job" would be. How would you suggest stopping ballistic missiles with less cost and risk, commondata?

gisterme - 10:50pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6873 of 6897)

Oops...

Sorry commondata...I meant to address wrcooper in the previous post.

gisterme - 10:57pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6874 of 6897)

lunarchick 12/17/02 11:27pm

"...Chimps might run a workshop on empowerment through 'social grooming' ... win-win - and live in improved circumstance :) "

Right! What an easy thing to visualize. Us picking fleas off of chimps while their fleas jumped from them to us...and chimps picking fleas off of us while their fleas jumped from them to us. That is as win-win situation...FOR THE FLEAS!

gisterme - 11:08pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6875 of 6897)

vanceco 12/18/02 9:06am

"...ABM, by definition(anti-BALLISTIC missile) will not work against 'cruise' missiles. russia and china already have cruise missile technology, and could easily sell the systems throughout the world."

They already do. Where do you think the silkworm cruise missiles the NKs have came from?

An effective defense against bacteria would not likely be effective against rogue elephants and an effective defense against rogue elephants would not likely be effective against bacteria.

It's no more surprising that an effective ABM defense would be useless against cruise missiles and existing effective defenses against cruise missles are useless against ballistic missiles.

(22 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense